>> absolutely not. >> how can you say that. >> because i -- what i'm saying is that we were explaining to the american public why the ied was not a threat at the time it was in the control of individuals. when we say positive control, inside control, we have at operation either environmentally or any number of ways. it did not reveal classified information and i told those individuals and -- to transcripts available of that conversation. i cannot talk about the operational details of this whatsoever. >> having used the words of inside control, it isn't much of a leap to determine you had a handle on it. >> it's not much of a leap to know if we said this ied was in fact obtained and it was not a threat at the time, that there was inside control. it's almost a truism. >> having said that, it seems to

me that the leak that the justice department is looking for is right here in front of us. you disagree with that. i disagree vee vee helmetly. i talked to the department of justice and i'm a witness in that as many people are. there's witness, subject and target. i'm not a subject or target, i'm a witness. i want to make sure whoever leaked the information to the press that seriously did does erupt operational equities on the part of operational partners. that never should have happened. >> you agree this was a serious flaw in what should have happened. >> it's a serious flaw it got out to the press before the operation was concluded. absolutely. >> and you were. >> and my discussion with those individuals that night, it was already in the press. >> you would agree with me on the day that we get mr. siri, it's being fob to be a very good

day or if he gets us first, it's going to be a very, very bad day for the american people and particularly for anyone who was involved in leak concerning him. >> senator, i live this every day and night. i go to bed at night worrying i didn't do enough to protect the american people. so when mr. asiri is brought to justice, it will be because of the work done over the past number of years by some brave americans in c.i.a. believe me, i'm focused on the ied threat and mr.al siri. >> my time's up. >> thank you, senator rich. senator mccull ski. before you start, senator, a vote is due to start at 4:00. it's 5 after 4:00, senator chambliss went to vote. as soon as he returns, i will do. we'll keep this going.

>> voting just started. please go ahead. >> mr. brennan, welcome to the committee and in the short time i have, you've mentioned your wife, kathy, could you introduce her to us? >> this is my wonderful, beautiful wife, kathy, who has my spouse 34 years and my partner in my work and my brother, thomas. >> we would like to to welcome you. we know not only would you serve but your entire will serve. i echo the remarks of my colleagues, senator warner, thanking the people of the central intelligence agency for what they do every day working often in a way that is not known, not recognized, and frankly not always appreciated. let me get to my questions. i have been concerned for some time that there is a changing

nature of the c.i.a. that instead of it being america's top spy agency, top human spy agency, to make we have no strategic surprises. that it has become more and more executing paramilitary operations. i discussed this with you in our conversations. how do you see this? i see this as mission creep, i see this as overriding the original mission of the c.i.a. for which you're so well versed and for a function of the special operations command. could you share how you see the c.i.a. and what you think about this militarization of the c.i.a. that's going on. >> thank you, senator. >> you might disagree with me and i welcome your disagreements. >> senator, the principle

mission of the agency so to collect intelligence, uncover secrets to prevent surprises and be the best analytic component and do the analysis the c.i.a. has done well for many years. at times the president directs the c.i.a. to do covert action. it can include paramilitary. as we discussed here today there are things the agency has been involved in since 9/11 that have been a bit of an aberration. one of the things i would do at the agency is look at that allocation of mission within c.i.a. the resource that are dedicated to this and as we had the discussion when i paid my courtesy call, i am concerned that looking at the world, which is a very big place, with he need to mange sure we have the best intelligence collection capability possible and the c.i.a. should not do traditional

military operations. >> i appreciate that and look forward to working with you on this to identified what is appropriate for the c.i.a. and to d.o.d. it takes me to the issue of cyber threat. both secretary panetta, general dempsey an we in your current role at the white house talked about the cyber threat. you were a big help to get the cyberlegislation passed. tell us what you think is the role of the c.i.a. in dealing with the cyber threat in the area of human intelligence or -- i mean with the c.i.a. you have a unique insight into it. we know what nsa does, we know what homeland security's supposed to do. tell us where you see the c.i.a. >> first of all the cyber threat this country faced is one of the most consequential to national

security and our government as a whole and congress needs to be focused on and do everything possible to prevent a devastating attack against this country because of vulnerability on the cyberfront. c.i.a.'s mission on the collection front is to determine the plans and intentions of foreign governments, foreign groups, sub national groups and others. learning about the plans and intentions and developing capabilities in the cyberworld is something c.i.a. is best place to do so we have an understanding of what foreign countries are doing, what organization criminal organizations are doing, sub national groups and the nature of the threat to us. then in addition, the analysts at c.i.a. can take that information and make sure policymakers have a good sense of the threat and potential met gas station strategies and working with the department of homeland security put together a

instructor to make -- instructor to make us resistant to attacks. >> i look forward to working with you on this, it cuts across all the agencies, the f.b.i., the -- i mean those that have responsibility for work outside of this country, inside this country, and yet we all have to be doing what we're -- used to in the marine corps, the best we're best at and most needed for. i consider this one of the greatest threats because we failed to pass the legislation ourselves. we can't stop what foreign predators want to do. we can divert, identify, and attack, but we're making ourselves vulnerable. i want to get to the job of the c.i.a. director. i'm going to be blunt, which will be no surprise to you, sir.

but i've been on this committee more than ten years. and with the exception of mr. panetta, i feel i've been jerked around by every c.i.a. director, either misled, misrepresented, had to pull information out at the most men mal kind of way from tenant with a aluminum rods to tell us we had weapons of mass destruction in iraq, to port are not with coming, the problems with torture. the chair has spoken about it all the way and during those questions, they were evaded, they were distorted, et cetera. my question to you is, knowing your background, knowing your jesuit education, knowing what your -- i think your values are, can i have your word you're going to be very forthcoming with this committee to speak truth to power, to speak truth

about power and even when incomfortable, where we're going to have to possible probe in a way that's not an easy way to go. >> honesty, truthfulness was a value in me in my home in new jersey, and still is to this day. honesty is the best policy. none of us are perfect beings, i'm far from perfect but i would commit i would be honest with that committee and do everything possible to meet your needs and requirements. i know you're a proud senator of you have one of the jewels of the committee, which resides in maryland but it would be deny objective to make your favorite the c.i.a. and push keith alexander aside. >> i think you're pushing your luck. thank you very much. madam chairman. >> thank you very much.

senator levin. >> thank you. thank you for your willingness to serve here. you said publicly you believe waterboarding is inconsistent with american values and something that should be prohibited. goes beyond the bounds of what a civilized society should em employ. does waterboarding constitute torture. >> the attorney general referred to what is believes is torture. a law enforcement officer and lawyer of in this country. let term torture has a lot of legal and political implications. it's something that should have been banned long ago and not taken place. if i were to go to the c.i.a. it would not be brought back. >> do you have a opinion as to

waterboarding is torture. >> i believe it's reprehensible and should not be done. i'm not a lawyer and can't address that question. >> you've read opinions as to whether or not waterboarding is torture. you accept those opinions of the attorney general. i've read a lot of legal opinions, i read an opinion that said waterboarding could be used. from the standpoint of that i can't point to a single league document. it's something that never should have been employed and never will be if i have anything to do with it. >> is waterboarding banned by the geneva conventions? >> i believe the attorney general said it's in couldn't invention of the geneva could be convention. >> mr. rodriguez was asked about

his personal, moral or ethical perspective on enhanced interrogation including waterboarding. he said that he knew of -- these are his words, i know that many of these procedures were applied to our own servicemen. tens of thousands of u.s. soldiers had gone through this, closed quote. now, as we investigated at the senate arms services in our 2008 report, so called survival evasion, resistance or sear techniques were used to train members of our military. they were never intended to be used by u.s. interrogators. these techniques were based on chinese communist interrogations techniques to elicit confessions, to expose u.s. -- the use or training of u.s. personnel and exposing of them for a few moments to these techniques which helped the --

was meant to help them survive in the event they were captured and in the event they were subjected to these techniques. my question is there any comp ability between a friendly trainer in the united states, exposing our troops to abuses, sear techniques, including waterboarding for a few moments, under close supervision. is there any possible compare ability to that to using these techniques on an enemy in an effort to extract intelligence? >> they're for completely different purposes and intentions. i don't say comparable. >> the chairman and i made a statement april 27, 2012, this also began with the statement of

mr. rodriguez. he said information provided by c.i.a. detainees, madam. >> bin laden's courier being the lead information that led to the location of his compound and the operation that led to his death. we said that he statement is wrong. the original lead information had no connection to c.i.a. detainees. the c.i.a. had intelligence from a variety of classified sources. the c.i.a. enhanced interrogation techniques were used but the pair provided falls and misleading information during their time in c.i.a. custody. now, my question to you is, are you aware of any intelligence information that supports mr. rodriguez's claim the lead information on the occur year came from ksm and al-libi. >> i have not reviewed the intelligence thoroughly but i'm

not aware of any. >> michael hayden, may 3, 2011, former c.i.a. direct are said the original lead information began with information from c.i.a. detain east at black sites. chairman -- the chairman and i issued in the same statement the following, that the statement of the former attorney general, michael mukasey was wrong. do you have information to disagree with our statement? >> i do not. >> a third statement that we quoted in our report. that of michael hayden. we got the original lead information -- excuse me, that was mr. hayden i was asking about. your answer is the same? >> i do not know. i'm unaware. >> you don't have any

information to the contrary. >> right. >> now michael mukasey. former attorney general. "wall street journal," consider how the intelligence that led to bin laden came to hand. it began with a disclosure from sheikh muhammad to broke under pressure. he released information including the name of a trusts your year of bin laden. our statement that of the chairman and myself is that that statement is wrong. do you have any information to the contrary? >> senator, my impression early on was there was information provided that was useful and available but i have read the first volume of your report which raises questions about whether that informations was accurate. >> i'm referring not to the report but the statement that chairman feinstein and i issued april 27, 2012. we flat out say that those statements are wrong. do you have any basis to

disagree? >> i do not. >> will you when you become c.i.a. director take the statement that we have issued and tell us whether or not you disagree with any of the statements we have made about those statements of those three men? will you do that if confirmed? >> i will look at consider that request. the report the committee put together, i need to look at the c.i.a. response and that report raises serious questions about whether worthwhile intelligence came from these individuals. >> will you include a review of our joint statement and tell us whether you disagree with anything we said. >> i will be happy to. >> one final point, and that has to do with a very famous document. my time is not yet up. that has to do with a cable that came in.

>> the issue is whether or not there was a meeting in prague between one of the people who attacked the trade center and the iraqi intelligence. the cable that came in has been classified by the c.i.a. even though the report of the -- this is what the c.i.a. did to the cable. now, will you check with the checks for the source of this cable and see if they have any option to the release of this cable relative to the report of that meeting? >> yes, senator. since our courtesy call i have looked into the issue. you and director petraeus were involved in a discussion on this. and i would be happy to follow up on it. there seems to be concerns about release of that cable. >> well, you your report of the

c.i.a. by the way, excuse me, the unclassified report of the intelligence committee which was not classified, was not redacted by the c.i.a., or. >> we've been listens to the senate confirmation year of john brennan. we've heard testimony on drones, we've heard testimony on cyberterror and on water waterboarding. we're going to take a break and come right back and pick this hearing up again. ok's fascinating testimony. we'll be right back.

you're listening to the senate confirmation hearing of john brennan. president obama's c.i.a.

director nominee. we heard him testify on drones and cyber terror, waterboarding, torture. take a listen. >> perhaps it had something to do with airlines and explosive devices. that apparently they had that for a few days and then either 0 were about or had gone ahead and released it. i'm assuming your answer, your then calling the conference call was in response to the -- what they have just released. is that correct? >> yes, a number of news networks put out information about this. >> and you expressly called this -- arranged this teleconference for what exact purpose? >> there were a number of people who were going out on news shows that night asking about the reports about this intercept the

ied and wanted context about the threat and asked questions about whether you said and the u.s. government said there was no threat so how could there not have been a threat if the ied was out there. >> the question i have is this, because based on what you said and what we have learned, you, then, in that teleconference, talked about the fact that, in answering the question how do we know this, i think the quote that came across from richard clark was, quote, never came close because they had insider information, insider control. and you had referenced that you had said that to the group. >> no, what i said was inside control of the plot and that the device was never a threat. >> okay, insider control. >> , i said inside control, not insider. >> inside control. based on what the associated --

"the associated press" never made mention about inside control. why was it necessary, then, to add that? why couldn't you have simply said we've intercept a plot, a successful interception? because once the word inside control got out, all the speculation was that that inside control was interpreted as meaning we got somebody inside. and the result of that was the covert action operation had to be dissolved because the control agent, the inside person, was -- was -- essentially the plot came -- was exposed and therefore the whole operation had to be dissolved.

>> i must caution there's still elements of this event that remain classified. and we cannot talk about in public. there was a lot of information that came out immediately after the ap broke that story. unfortunately there was a hemorrhaging of information and leaks. what i said was there was inside control. what i denied the to do and what i said to the american public in an open network, the following morning, is that during the anniversary period of the bin laden take down, when we said to the american public there was no active plot, no threat to the american public that we were aware of, why was not this ied we had intercepted, why wasn't that a threat? because we had inside control of the plot, which means any number of things, environmentally, working with partners. it did not reveal classified information and we have to be careful because there's still operational elements of this

that remain classified. >> that's appropriate but it was just a couple weeks later reuters reported publicly, as a result of the news leaks, u.s. and allied officials told reuters they were forced to end an operation which they hoped could have continued for weeks or longer. >> a lot of things were reported by the press, accurate, inaccurate. i could not put stock in the things you're reading. i know i engaged for an an exted period of time before and after the leak to mitigate damage from the leak and subsequent leaks. >> you're essentially saying this reuters report may or may not be accurate but had no link to what was disclosed to mr. clark and then what he said later -- shortly there after. >> what i'm saying is i'm comfortable with what i did and said to make sure we're able to deal with the unfortunate leak

of classified information. >> how frequently did you have to pull groups like this together in order to, in a sense, put out authorized or at least what you think is appropriate, news for purposes, for the correct purses? >> senator, effect frequently if there's an event, a terrorist attack, underwear bomber or ied, we'll engage with the american public, the press, with individuals, who are experienced professional counterterrorism experts who go out and talk to the american public. we want to make sure there's not misrepresentation of the facts but do it in a way of maintaining control of classified material. >> it does occur or it's possible to put out an authorized leak. that's correct? >> no, those are oxymorons. authorized leak.

it's something that would have to be declassified, disclosed an done in a proper manner. >> and this in no way fell into that category. >> absolutely not. i was asked to engage with these individuals. i talked with them about the interception. >> there is a provision in the last years' intelligence authorization bill that requires a report to this committee of authored leaks. >> i'm aware of the provision. >> no report has come forward so i assume there's been no authorized leaks. >> we want to make sure there's disclosure of classified information, that committee will be informed. we'll adhere to the provision. >> thank you,. >> senator udoll. >> thank you, good afternoon, mr. brennan. i can't help but observing that senator coats talked about being

governor of new jersey. i think that's a piece of cake compared to being the director of the c.i.a. i hope governor christie won't take that the wrong way because i have great respect for him. >> i have no plans to run against governor christie. >> thank you for your service, thank you for your willingness to continue serving as head of the c.i.a. i have comments i would like to share and i'll direct some questions your way. you said that president obama believes that done carefully, deliberately and responsibly we can be more transparent and ensure our nation's security. i absolutely agree. the american people have the right to know what their government does on their maria, consistent with our national security, the presumption of transparency should be the rule, not the exception and the government should make as much information available to the american public as possible. when we on the committee and members of congress push for

access to legal analysis justifying the authority of the executive branch to leithly target americans using drones, for instance, it erodes the government's credibility of the american people. i want to tell you i'm grateful to the president for allowing members of this committee to read through the legal opinions on targeting american assists citizens. i think there's much more to be done and you've heard that from my colleagues today. i believe our government has an obligation to the american people to face mistakes and help the public understand stand the nature of those mistakes and correct them. the next director has an important task. >> we're listening live to senate confirmation hearing of john brennan, cochlear c.i.a. dr nominee. some tense testimony. he talked dr. drones, torture,

leaks. let's bring in mr. peter baker of a friend of mine that works at the "new york times." >> i've been hearing it, very interesting. >> very interesting. the reason i asked to bring you on is in 2009 you wrote a great piece, a transition from president bush to president obama and president obama at the time wanted to close gitmo, a lot of things in the terror and intel community and you wrote about how during the inauguration, a set upfor the inauguration, a lot of those plans changed. can you give us a quick two seconds on that? >> sure, what president obama as a candidate ran against president bush's first term. what he didn't fully realize is president bush by the time he left office modified the counterterrorism policies that were controversial so when he took over, he agreed with a lot of things he inherit. not everything. but a lot of what he took over from president bush he kept in

place. >> one is john brennan, he kept president bush's pick for national counter-terrorist center director, john brennan. talk about what you heard him speak about drones. he said they're conducted, the drone strikes, conducted in full compliance with the law. any surprise at -- from you, you watched this stuff, as the frequency of the drone attacks. >> it's interesting. drone attacks started in earnest in president bush's last year. president obama took over and found they were a useful instrument on the war on terror and accelerated them during the last four years whether they're legal is one of the questions that administration has been struggling to answer publicly. they have not engaged as fully with the questions about this as a lot of people would like them to engage. what does the government have power to do. where are the limits? who makes these decisions? very important questions that

were important under president bush and under president obama. >> i won't -- in 2009, eric holder at the department of justice said that waterboarding was torture and the president didn't have the right to make that call because he's talking about president bush. yet there's a kill list, "new york times" published a kill list, president obama had a list that he chose who would be targeted with drone strikes for killing. how do they square that circle? if waterboarding is beyond the scope of the president but killing someone is not. >> it raises a moral question, what is more immoral, in the hands of interrogation techniques, torturing as at this time kicks call it or sort of -- without due process, kind of death strikes from the air. it's a question they've had a hard time answering. one of the things they would say is a difference between how we

handle someone once in custody as opposed to someone in the battlefield as people in pakistan and yemen are, they're defining them as an active war zone. >> i listened to senator levin question mr. brennan. he wanted him to answer whether he thought waterboarding was torture. he said it should be banned but he was insist tant what was he going for. >> he was trying to avoid tripping up the legal arguments. united states government argued these were legal things and if they were not, obviously exposes people to liability that john brennan would just asoon avoid. president obama came in and said he signed the order banning these techniques but he didn't want to have a look backwards, eric holder investigated and they shut it down. >> one last thought. hang in for a second. i noticed that they tried to get

mr. brennan to talk about authorized leaks and he said that's an oxymoron. there's no such thing. i'll leave it there. we'll take a break and dip back into the senate confirmation hearing when we come back. >> it does not identify undercover officers. [ male announcer] surprise -- you're having triplets.

[ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

we're listening to john brennan answering a question from senator marco rubio in the senate confirm hearing. >> about the foreign partners i talk about. have you talked to folks in the c.i.a. about their impressions of the quality of information we're getting from our foreign partners. >> yes, on a regular basis. >> they've -- would it surprise you to know some indicated to us repeatedly over the last couple years i've been here that the information we get directly is much better than anything we get from our foreign partners on some issues? >> that's why we work with

foreign partners to have direct access. >> i'm concerned a suspect in the benghazi attack and the ton notions detained him. >> yes. >> did we not ask for access to him? >> the tunisians did not a basis to hold him. >> they released him. >> they did. >> where is he. >> in tunisian. >> that doesn't sound like a gook system. >> the it shows the ton notions are working with their rule of law. >> we have someone who is a suspect in the attack on benghazi. they didn't give us access to him and we don't have any information from him. >> we work with partners across the board. when they're able to detain individuals we see if we have the ability to ask questions directly and indirectly.

>> ton notion law -- >> we didn't have anything on him because if we did, we would have made a point to the tunisians to turn him over. >> what role should the chia play c.i.a. should lend full expertise in support of military interrogation, and foreign partner debriefings. they do that on a regular basis. >> what's the best setting to do that. a suspect the terrorist is captured an we think we can obtain information, where do you suggest they be taken? >> there's many options. sometimes with foreign partners, they put individuals in their jails and in their detention facility according to their laws and people can access that. we take people as we have in the past and put them on naval vessels and interrogate them for an extent the period of time. >> you think that's the best setting in leaving aside foreign

partners, for us. >> i think each case requires a very unique and tailored response. whether or not someone is picked up on the high assess or anywhere else. we need to see what are the conditions. what we have as far as as far as for interrogation. it's tailored to the circumstances. >> when we detain a suspected terrorist, the purpose of the interrogation is to develop information that could be used to disrupt terrorist activities and prevent attacks. >> without a doubt. >> not to lay the case for a criminal conviction. >> i think you want to take the person off the battlefield and get as much intelligence at possible. you don't get the information and send them off. you need to do something with them. we put people away for 99 years, to for life, to they're not able

to hurt americans. get to the intelligence but at the same time but them away. >> but the number one priority initially is not protect the record for a criminal prosecution, it's to obtain information. >> right. >> priority number 2, take them off the battlefield. >> it's not either or but i agree. >> why shouldn't we have places where we interrogate team, for example, guantanamo. why shouldn't we have a place? is it not an incentive to kill them. >> no, never. any time we encountered somebody we have come up with the roots for them to take to be interrogated, debriefed and prosecuted. >> why is it a bad idea to have a place to take them. >> it's not a bad idea. we need those places. sometimes overseas, sometimes a naval vessel, a lot of times in the states where we bring someone back because we have a complaint or indictment and we bring them into an article 3

mr. process so we can elicit information and put them away behind bars. >> is the article 3 process an ideal way to develop the information? >> i'm proud of our system of laws and the process and or track record is strong over the past couple dozen years. there are so many terrorists that have been successfully producted and -- >> i understand but the first priority is develop information but in article 3 setting is not conducive. >> i disagree. >> immediately advised about not cooperating and turning over information that would incriminate them. >> again a, it's tailored to the circumstances. sometimes an individual is mirandized. that means only that the information they give before then cannot be used in article 3 court but the f.b.i. does a great job eliciting information

mirandizeing them to get information as part of the negotiation. let them know they can languish forever or we can have a die grog this case i talked about, you're comfortable with the notion but a the tunisians concluded they don't have a legal basis to hode them, we lost someone -- >> senator, this country of america really needs to make sure we're setting a standard, an example for the world. as far as the basis we're going to in fact interrogate, debrief somebody, we want to do it in conjunction with international partners and make sure we have the basis to do it so we don't have to face in the future challenges about how we in fact obtained the -- >> you keep talking about the basis of our law. what law are you talking about in terms of basis of detaining

someone? when you say you want to make sure -- you said. >> that's right. >> which law are he talking about. >> depends on the circumstance. law of wards intention. article 3 authority that the f.b.i. has? >> right. >> c.i.a. does not have any detention authority. >> the point is the truth of the matter is we don't know in hare. >> i knew about the benghazi talk or future attacks by the same people because we never got to talk to him because tunisians didn't hold him. that couldn't concern. >> we press our governments to hold individuals. sometimes their laws do not allow that to happen. i think the united states government has to respect these government's right to enforce their laws appropriately. what we don't want to do is to

have these individuals held in some time of custody that's extra judicial. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator marco rubio. thank you. >> thank you mr. brennan for your testimony. >> all right, you're listening to senator marco rubio questioning john brennan, cochlear implant director nominee that president obama has put up. this is the senate confirmation hearing. he talked about drones, waterboarding, leaks. and senator marco rubio wanted to know the c.i.a. role in interrogation. we're going to take a break and we'll be right back. a final go. this is for real this time. step seven point two one two. rify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it.

siemens. answers. by the armful? by the barrelful? e carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. yeah. then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. ok. [ voice of dennis ] silence. are you in good hands?

we have to make sure more than ever ever dollar dedicated to intelligence is opt mice

myselfed. i wouldn't take 5% off the top. >> one of the reasons we need sequestration. >> absolutely right. i want to look at the programs and prioritize and look at what are the programs we need to resource appropriately. we've had benefits from pulling folks out of iraq and with the continued draw dawn in afghanistan there's some resource and assets we have to reallocate. what i want to do is make sure if i go to c.i.a., i i have an understanding about exactly how moneys are spent. then as you point out there's intelligence in the defense department and recent press reports about the defense clan

destined service and the work with the c.i.a. i want to make sure the efforts are not redundant. i have had had conversation to make sure the efforts are integrated and complimentary because we have not have unnecessarily redundant capabilities, particularly in the environment we have on the fiscal front. >> this is an area that needs a lot of attention and oversight. i get concerned at times that the ic on one hand and d.o.d. on the other hand think they're coming from separate originators of funding and ultimately they have to be within the greater budget constraints. my time is running down. your background and most of you are expertise is on the ct side. clearly the challenge we have is we see emerging threats from parts of the world that were not on the front line, we see

disruptions through the middle east, where perhaps in retroprospect we didn't have the right coverage on social media and the streets. how do we make sure we get within the fiscal constraints, that we don't go complete ct and make sure we have the coverage we need, the capabilities we need and the worldwide coverage we need with your approach, particularly with your background. >> counterterrorism is going to be a priority area for the intelligence and c.i.a. for many years to come. just like weapons proliferation. those are enduring challenges. since 9/11 the c.i.a. has done a tremendous job mitigating the terrorist threat. at the same time they have this responsibility on global coverage so what i need to lock at is whether or not there has been too much emphasis on the ct front. as good as it is, we have to

make sure we're not going to be surprised on the strategic front and other areas. to dedicate the collection capabilities, operations officers, social media, as you said, the so-called arab spring did not lend itself to traditional intelligence collection. things were happening in a populist way, that having somebody well positioned who can provide information is not going give us insight. i want to expand beyond collection capabilities and see what else we need to do to take into account the changing nature of the global environment, the changes of the communications that exists worldwide. >> thank you for that. back to my first point, should you be confirmed, trying to make

sure you've got that objective oversight, the ability to make sure you have the best knowledge and bessmetrics possible so when future challenges arrive, we have the best information possible. >> thank you very much. mr. brennan, so you can be advised. >> you've been listening to john brennan, c.i.a. correct -- director nominee under president bush. we heard dramatic, heated, tense testimony. the most dramatic was when senator marco rubio asked why we would let tunisians release the only -- there's a full wrapup on special report at 6:00 p.m. i've going to the five but this is dramatic testimony we'll wrap

up. in the meantime, don't change the challenge. i'll remike and go do the five. see you tomorrow. hi. hi. i'm here to pick up some cacti. it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data... got enough joshua trees? ... on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola.

i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service®, works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com®, you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free.